First look: Cosmos rebooted with Neil deGrasse Tyson

We've seen the first episode, and we came away impressed.

Taken from slightly left of center in the theater of the Hayden Planetarium.

John Timmer

The original Cosmos, hosted by Carl Sagan, was a significant influence on me in my youth. I'd always had an interest in science, but it was scattershot. I loved fossils and dinosaurs, but I had no idea how the organisms of the Cambrian related to those of the Jurassic. I followed the Voyager probes' progress through the Solar System and stared into the night sky with wonder, but I didn't have any framework to fit any of it into.

And then my parents—neither of whom had any science background to speak of—sat me down to watch Cosmos. And night after night, things were put into context: the Big Bang, deep time, the evolution of life from microbes to modern humans—I don't remember many details (or even how much I really understood as a young teenager) but I do remember it as a giant dose of perspective. And I clearly wasn't alone; the airing of Cosmos was a major event, and Sagan made his way into popular culture, even ending up the target of gentle ribbing in the Bloom County comic strip.

An early Bloom County strip with Carl Sagan.

Washington Post Writers Group

As brilliant as the original was, I agree with the writers and producers who felt that we were due for a new incarnation. Planets outside our Solar System, only a hypothetical at the time of the original show, have been found in amazing abundance. The Higgs boson exists, neutrinos have mass, and we've completed the human genome, along with those of hundreds of other organisms. Science has moved at an incredible pace, and I'm not about to let nostalgia cause me to view a revamped Cosmos as a form of sacrilege... provided the reboot is actually any good, at least. Last night, I got a chance to judge for myself at the Hayden Planetarium, the home institution of Cosmos host Neil deGrasse Tyson. Although I've only seen the first episode, I'm feeling pretty optimistic about the new series.

Your host

Tyson may be the best communicator of science I have ever seen: animated, witty, and possessing both a rich voice and an enthusiasm for the Universe that can be felt viscerally. To a certain extent, having him in a scripted program is wasting his talent, which can only be fully appreciated when he's working a room with his spontaneity. Nevertheless, it's hard to imagine a better choice, and he does an absolutely splendid job as host.

Episode one (of 13 total) faces an enormous challenge: how do you reintroduce a program that's a bit of a cultural icon while introducing a topic covering the origin of everything in existence? In an homage to the original, the episode is flanked with scenes from Sagan's version, and Tyson pays tribute to the original host at the end. It's touching to hear Tyson relay how, as a teenager obsessed with astronomy, Sagan hosted him for a day at Cornell and displayed such generosity that Tyson says he didn't only learn about science, "I learned what kind of person I wanted to be."

In between those bookends, however, it's all the new Cosmos, and it's all pretty good. The show will use what it's calling the "ship of the imagination" to journey between scenes and provide visual cues for when you're looking at the Universe as it is now and when you're exploring its past. The computer-generated graphics are superb; staring down into Jupiter's Great Red Spot was hypnotizing. I would have been happy with a half-hour of that alone.

Even more importantly, the script is good—which shouldn't be a shock considering that Ann Druyan, one of the writers of the original Cosmos (and Sagan's wife), is back for round two. The first episode initially tackles scale, starting with a tour of the Solar System and moving out through galaxies and the observable Universe to the possibility of a multiverse. After an interlude, the episode handles deep time, showing the 13.8-billion-year history of the Universe as a single year and placing key events at various dates. Combined, the two should provide a framework for placing the topics covered in the remaining dozen episodes.

The interlude also serves a purpose. The series is being run on a combination of 10 channels, some run by National Geographic, which makes sense, and some run by Fox, which makes a bit less (Druyan referred to Fox's enthusiasm when they pitched the program as a "bit of a head snap moment"). The obvious worry is that some of the spirit of Fox News' approach to science might infect the new Cosmos. But various things that would make many Fox News viewers (not to mention Ken Ham) go all twitchy—billions of years, the Big Bang, and the greenhouse effect—all get prominent mentions in the first episode.

If there's any doubt about the program's affinities, the interlude puts them to rest by telling the story of Giordano Bruno, a monk who, as Tyson notes, got the basic structure of the Universe right purely by accident. But as with everyone else of his time, Bruno didn't distinguish matters of theology from those of the natural world, so he ended up being burned at the stake for heresy about a decade before Galileo built his telescope. Tyson uses the tale to drive home the importance of having a healthy separation of church and state.

Should you tune in?

Was all this good enough to make me want to watch more? I've now spent a number of years immersing myself in science in a way that has given me a far more sophisticated perspective on our Universe than my teenage self could have ever extracted from the original Cosmos.

So I'm not shocked that the middle-aged me didn't learn anything new in the first episode, at least not in terms of science. But the people involved in the show include some of the best in the business of communicating science, and I expect I will learn enough about the craft to make tuning in for more worthwhile. I also think it's guaranteed that there will be many more awesome moments like the dive into Jupiter's Great Red Spot to enjoy.

If you're less familiar with science, I expect there will be a lot to gain from watching Cosmos. Even if you're involved with science, the show will probably have something for you. Biologists will get a healthy perspective on how much of the Universe's history has passed without any biology, while promo clips make it clear that astronomers can expect a few biology lessons. And the awesome bits will be awesome for everyone.

Cosmos, a Spacetime Odyssey will start airing on a variety of National Geographic and Fox channels this Sunday. We'll also have a review from someone who didn't see the original coming up shortly.

173 Reader Comments

Words cannot express the excitement I feel about this show. Just like the author the original cosmos (re-runs) that I saw back in my home country were one of the primary reasons I gravitated towards sciences. Which in turn I believe led to my field of choice to be engineering. Here is to "Cosmos" once again inspiring younger generations.

I can't wait for the first part in the series to air Sunday. I have looked forward to this show since it was announced. Neil deGrasse Tyson is the best choice for hosting this critical, thought-provoking show.

As rough science education for the masses, we could not do much better. I hope this series broadcast inspires as many new scientists, astronauts, and dreamers as the original Cosmos did. The world will be better for it.

I'd like to think this is Tyson's version of Zach Stone Is Gonna Be Famous, the very people who would benefit most from the show is Fox's audience, and having it come from Fox (or at least be aired on it's network) is a surefire way to have the information seen as credible in the eyes of that audience.

Maybe Tyson can be a regular on Fox News and actually provide accurate scientific information instead of the crackpipe science regularly seen there?

Ann Druyan is a fantastic lady and an equally fantastic interview. If you haven't heard her on Radiolab discussing her relationship with Carl Sagan and the Voyager golden record project, you are missing out:

I'm cautiously optimistic. Cosmos (and subsequently every Sagan book I could get my hands on) really fueled my sense of wonder and appreciation for the world around us. It had all of Sagan's infectious curiosity and awe, and his exquisitely human touch as he tied all the different fields of science together. NDT is a fantastic successor to Sagan's legacy as a science popularizer. Whereas Carl was a soft voice of quiet dignity, Neil has an exuberant excitement about everything. I'm glad we now have a body of work that encompasses both of their unique approaches to the topic of explaining what we know, and how we know it.

That said, it's going to be hard for this show to top the original for me. Some of the cinematography and even some of the knowledge may seem outdated now, but it's still a tremendous piece of art that's had a real, visceral impact for a lot of people when they saw it for the first time.

This is one series that I will definitely be buying the box set or some licensed digital copy of. My kids are not quite yet old enough to understand it, but when they do, I will be sitting them down for some serious TV time. Cosmos (the original) set my imagination on fire, and I'll be thrilled if the new one can do the same for my kids.

Haven't seen the show yet, but De Grasse Tyson is a brilliant man and as an astrophysicist is a perfect choice for extending Sagan's start. Particularly with his prior interactions with Sagan. De Grasse Tyson is infectiously enthusiastic and I will watch. No offense to others but no one but a real scientist could do this type of program justice. Thank you Neil!

Why do people always conflate the regular Fox channel with Fox News? You think Republicans are loving on Family Guy and American Dad? Fox Broadcast TV and Fox News Channel are owned by the same corporation, but run by different people.

Now, is there any way to stream this sucker or is the Cosmos for the 21st century going for 20th century distribution?

My favorite part of the old series was Sagan talking about how people went from observing *nothing* on Venus (just featureless cloud cover) through a series of speculations ending with dinosaurs roaming around Venus. It was a perfect model of how most human beings think.

For those worried about legal streaming, doesn't Fox stream their shows within a day? Or how about Hulu?

I might get burned at the stake for this, but I actually liked Connections better. The continuation of the Series in the 90s was pretty good, but a full on reboot could be quite interesting. Though James Burke is just as tough of an act to follow as Sagan.

Why do people always conflate the regular Fox channel with Fox News? You think Republicans are loving on Family Guy and American Dad? Fox Broadcast TV and Fox News Channel are owned by the same corporation, but run by different people.

It's the same sort of thing where people get confused as to why Samsung would be both selling chips to Apple and suing them for smart-phone related things. Some folks just don't understand how large and complex (and, it could be argued, amoral, when it comes to making money from their competitors) the largest corporations are.

If it's not there, check the fox website. You could also check Hulu, as they (at least they used to - haven't used Hulu in awhile myself, so not sure if this is still the case) carried a lot of Fox programming, last I checked.

Actually, I just went to hulu, and I see they have a page setup for Cosmos, and it claims that if you are a hulu plus subscriber, you can watch the series on hulu:

I loved the original, but was leery of this remake due to the Fox connection. The NatGeo channel has been an utter disappointment. With far more reality tv style crap than the nice documentaries that used to run on PBS. Now I know that Fox News is run by different people, but you still have the same overall corporate leadership and is controlled by that arch-conservative reactionary Rupert Murdoch.

So it is good to know that the new Cosmos is living up to the spirit of the old one.